#115 Discussion: Stream branch ownership for packages & modules
Opened a month ago by asamalik. Modified 2 days ago

Traditional package ownership

In the traditional model, packages are built out of release branches (i.e. f28, f29, ...) directly by submitting package builds.
There is just one person owning the package and building it.

Modular package & module ownership

With Modularity, packages are being built indirectly by submitting a module build which automatically spins package builds for all package stream branches the module includes.

One module can include multiple packages, and one package can be included in multiple modules.
How do we deal with ownership?

Proposal

I think the proposal should be reworded to be:

Package stream branches don't have explicit owners. The ownership is defined implicitly by the following:

  • Module stream branches do have explicit owners. These owners are also responsible for all package stream branches they include in their module.
  • If one package stream is included in multiple modules owned by multiple people, they would collectively maintain the package stream.
  • If there is a package stream branch that is not being built in any module or package, it's unmaintained. It can be optionally retired, but doesn't have to be, because it's not being built. If someone decides to include this stream branch into their module, they'll become the owner.

I think the proposal should be reworded to be:

Package stream branches don't have explicit owners. The ownership is defined implicitly by the following:

  • Module stream branches do have explicit owners. These owners are also responsible for all package stream branches they include in their module.
  • If one package stream is included in multiple modules owned by multiple people, they would collectively maintain the package stream.
  • If there is a package stream branch that is not being built in any module or package, it's unmaintained. It can be optionally retired, but doesn't have to be, because it's not being built. If someone decides to include this stream branch into their module, they'll become the owner.

@james I think the FPC should probably review this ticket

@langdon Thanks! I've changed the proposal to include your edit which is much better than what I wrote!

well, this has been put in the way that only modular version exists, however there might be package which is built traditionally and in a module.

@ignatenkobrain Are you referring to the potential use of stream branches for ursine builds? I don't think that's currently the case anywhere or am I wrong?

Not sure if this is an FPC matter but I think an ack from FESCo would be welcome. I'll file the ticket.

we'll discuss this one with FESCo

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata